Eric Kim on the pioneering color photographer Stephen Shore

Popular LA-based street photographer Eric Kim has posted an interesting article on his site, entitled '5 things Stephen Shore can teach you about street photography'. According to Kim, Shore - an American photographer best known for his 1970s color studies of American landscapes - has a lot to teach today's street photographers. Kim suggests five maxims gleaned from his analysis of Shore's work, which he thinks constitute good photographic practise when shooting on the street. These include 'Shoot Color For Visual Accuracy And Realism' and 'Go Against The Grain' as well as more prosiac advice such as 'date your images'.

Do you agree? Would you add any more aphorisms to Kim's list? Let us know in the comments.

Is this thread of comments on Steven Shore evidence of the reactionary nature of most camera owners and users, world-wide? It's astounding. Whether Steven Shore is a good photographer or not, the level of banality in those arguments put forward against his work is saddening. I feel sorry for dpreview in their uphill struggle to make the world of photography interesting beyond discussions of sensors, glass, pixels, 'street photography' and the worship of the mundane concept of 'professionalism'.

It is a sad comment that the reactions have been largely negative, and completely intolerant of ideas that challenge their own worldview.

The dismissive comments are from people who seem to have lost a sense of fun in their lives. I don't expect everyone to love the work, but the people that can't discuss it and are immediately dismissive seem to allow fear to overcome imagination.

The comments on here just reinforce to me that many of the people who come on here are techy geeks who just want to trash the perceived enemy's gear (see Canon v Nikon reviews - ye Gods) and marvel at techy details, but have no appreciation for photography. All the people saying they could take pictures like Shore. Please. I'll take the views of real photography critics who appreciate Shore's art over some idiots who want to talk about why their Nikon D845 has more pixels and faster fps than someone else's Canon 123D or whatever.

Stephen Shore is great but only when Stephen Shore does "Stephen Shore" not when someone else does "Stephen Shore." Ditto William Eggleston. Try something new people, there's way too many people copying this style and it needs to be put to death.

That's silly. Stephen Shore's photos aren't brilliant because they were taken by a guy named "Stephen Shore", they're brilliant because they're exciting and visually striking images. Either the results are aesthetically pleasing or they're not. Whether or not someone else has done something more or less similar already has nothing to do with that at all. That's not a search for artistic quality, just for superficial novelty.

I agree with all of the things Kim got from Shore's photography. They seem like good things to keep in mind, especially the "date your images" and "experiment with different formats" thing. I shot medium format film with a Bronica SQ-A for the first time this year and it was a really good experience.

Yes - Kim's advices are generally sound. But - I dont understand what they have to do with Shore. And to be frank - Kim's advices is just a compilation of diverse sound advices. What do they have to do with Kim?

A photographer’s work often has more to say about the artist behind the lens than the objects in front. Posters to sites like this often decry others, and criticize others work but where is their offerings?Put-up or shut-up!Maybe then you’ll have firm grounding for an opinion and some credibility

the thing about Western art is...boring...while the most lovely and "artistic" never get scholar or media attention. We see news of Mona Lisa getting analyze and studied for years and years. We see news of a piece of art being priced at millions of $. and while the most genius and creative artists never get any recognition.

i can make millions if I put paint on my butt and seat on a canvas, that is if I can be friend with a scholar, reporter, writer, the media

what does genius and the media have in common? I'm a little dumb, genius? And why are you all over the posts and comments of other posters? You must love Stephen Shore or that you are Stephen's personal media.

I have now looked at Stephen Shore's images at 303 gallery. And I find them boring - all of them. You have to say though that he is consistent ... ly boring. Thats a kind of quality most people cannot live up to. There is often some thing of interest in some of the images. But Stephen has very skillfully avoided that.

Regarding Eric's blog - I still dont understand what it has to do with Stephen's images. Mostly unrelated as far as I can see.

I have also looked at Eric's images. Not so bad IMHO. Not my style really ... but not without emotional reaction from my side. And after that I understand even less why Eric refers to Stephen. I see no relation at all.

I don't think you have to shoot similar images to someone to comment on their work. You don't even have to be a photographer. Many of the best photo editors are not photographers. Frankly, you are completely entitled to your opinion, but I don't think it's necessary to critique the writer's work and to try and find some "relation." That would be like hunting down Kathy Ryan's photos the next time see a piece she was working on as a photo editor. "I just don't see how these Afghanistan photos relate to her work" etc.

OK - your choice Fiftyseven - I wonder though if you find your own posts all that inspiring. They more or less say one thing, Those that dont like Shore's images lacks the ability to see his greatness. Quite repetitive.

Mike - Kim did not comment on Shore's work. He just wrote a summary of advices how to shoot street photography - and used Shore's images as decoration. Dont know why. Maybe he thought the fame of Shore would enhance his own words. ---- The words did not seem related to the images though.

Roland, it's very difficult to produce work that is apparently consistently boring. That's an art. To paraphrase John Cage's advice you just need to look at it long enough to overcome and see beyond your boredom.

Those are hands down some of the most boring, pedestrian photographs I have ever seen. Reminds me of the artist who puts up a blank canvas and everyone stands around ooh and aah-ing over the esoteric statement about the emptiness our our collective existence.

Precisely what I wanted to say. One huge collection of everything you wish people would filter out before they actually show you their photos, and because this man is an "artist" we are suddenly supposed to like it? Or even worse, now it suddenly has meaning?

And we get some great tips like "date your photos". Because, you know, cameras don't already do that by themselves...

You definitely don't know much about art, history of art, etc. Stephen Shore was the first fine art color photographer.For you to have an idea:At age fourteen, he had his work purchased by the Moma, NY. At seventeen, Shore was a regular at Andy Warhol factory, producing an important photographic document of the scene, and in 1971 at the age of 23, he became the first living photographer to have a one-man show at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY.

In the 1970s the relatively new Photo Academia represented by the Visual Studies Workshop, Afterimage Magazine, Society for Photographic Education and many relatively new MFA programs--- were struggling to gain Art World Legitimacy. Part of that quest was the embrace of Postmodernism with its snarky cynicism, celebration of the banal, rejection of the beautiful and a compulsion to talk, talk, talk about "images." It is little wonder that the Pet Rock was popular in that same decade.

These photos are a product of the art-world culture of the time. If these images or Andy Warhol's soup cans were released today they would almost certainly be be ignored unless the artist had a great agent or some sort of publicity. They are interesting from an art-history perspective, if not very interesting to look at on their own. That said, some pretty plain photos sell for a lot of money these days as well.

Wonder if I can dig up and post some of my old images ? Sorry - not impressed, I don't wish to be critical but is this another case of being famous for being famous - then again I'd never heard of him until now so how famous can he be?

I don't mind these articles at all. I don't mind Eric Kim either. What I do mind, is that DPreview has been slacking in the "review" part of this website. There are a ton of cameras that need reviewing. Get to work!

I'm shocked that Eric Kim has made it to dpreview. I don't think he is particularly impressive and have no idea how he is so famous.

However, I think people are being overly critical about him. While I don't think his photographic work merits his popularity, people here are criticizing him for sharing ideas that have already been said before or posting photos that aren't particularly good, but what's wrong with that?

A lot of people here aren't that familiar with blogging. But in case you didn't know, ideas are freeform, flexible and transferable. Blogging is all about sharing, and as long as you cite your sources, it's great that there's a whole community of people sharing what they seen, read, heard, experienced, etc

Eric Kim is not a great photographer; maybe he's not even that great a writer. But he's a blogger, someone who's confident, supplies regular material, and shares bits of what he does.

Maybe he's not great, but perhaps his well-done sharing is enough to be famous.

Again, I'm not supporting Eric Kim, nor am I trying to defame him. I do not like his work nor his blogging. I am just explaining that to be a great blogger (or video blogger on YouTube for example), you don't necessarily need to have the best work. You just need consistent material, healthy confidence, a good supply of ideas and direction with what you want to share, and not be terrible. Just the art of sharing- sometimes just being who you are and not being afraid to do it publicly is enough to get people to like you.

This is crap. I don't know who Eric Kim keeps stroking to get reposted, but if he's who DP Review is turning to to get page hits now, then consider me unimpressed. I've never thought much of his work; he's more blogger than photographer, and after his little "I'm going to be a war photographer/go camping" debacle a few weeks back, I'm convinced that he's nothing more than yet another internet hack who likes to fondle new cameras and write blog posts. But hey, if people were willing to throw money and popularity at me for my contrived opinion, who's to say I wouldn't be doing the same thing? Oh, wait, I'm too busy actually shooting...

There was a contest to pick the best designs for a T-shirt a couple of years ago. The winners were the designs that had most positive comments AND the ones that had the most negative comments. It's about the emotion, guys, T-shirts or pics.

Actually - this is a rather good post. At first I dismissed it as nonsense. But - it actually has some merit. Stephens images awakens one emotion - what is this for boring cr@p? Thats it. Not easy to make that so good as those images. Most boring pictures are just bad. But those images are not all that bad - just boring. So - a set of relatively good boring pictures. Could anything be more annoying than that? The question that comes to my mind is why he did it. Why take a photo of a platter with food and then insist it is a piece of art that shall hang n a wall. And then do so with some success? Strange!

Bravo for expanding the scope of DPREVIEW! The art and craft of Photography encompasses far more than equipment reviews, fascinating and valuable though they are. We can only gain depth and comprehension from exposure to articles such as these. I am grateful and gratified to see these areas addressed.

I just spent the past four year in art school studying photography and I still find Stephen Shore to be "challenging". I spent my first three years as just about the only photo student to find his photographs utterly worthless, until he came to talk with us; after that day I had a few more allies. After listening to him speak I can fairly confidently say that any meaning gleaned from his pictures is implied by the viewer. Shore simply points his camera at whatever banal crap he wants, and lets the viewer do the rest. Lazy "art" at its worst. Everything is "beautiful" and everything "raises questions". The artist's job should consist of more than just pointing out examples.

P.S. - Despite the rant, I actually do commend DPR for infusing a bit more of the "fine art" aspect into their posts. They have every right to, and by all means SHOULD expand the scope of the site. Just...expand in a better direction ;-P

Even great artists can be unimpressive in person. I don't put Shore in that category, but don't find his inability to express his ideas at all surprising. I went to a first-rate art school and most of my professors could paint/draw/sculpt/etc. much better than they could speak. Visual ideas don't necessarily have verbal equivalents.

I have to smile when I see these photos because they just scream early seventies. Take a look at photorealist painters of the era and you'll see the same blandly suburban, middle class subjects, complete with period cars. Everything old is new again.

Mark, all of that is very true. Indeed, I'm afflicted with the same "problem" in my own work, as are many of my favorite artists. (If you went to SFAI, you were no doubt exposed to Linda Connor, whose speeches generally consist of "Talking about photography is stupid, so here are my pictures." - a viewpoint I can get behind.) The issue that we had with Shore was not his failure to explain his concepts but his insistence that it could/should be done.

To be sure, I do enjoy the "time capsule" quality of his photographs. But then, I also enjoy the same quality of photos in family albums taken by people who don't expect to be lauded for it.

Ultimately, I find Shore to be one of the most glaring examples of the "emperor's new clothing" aspect of modern art. After four years of stewing, I doubt there's any way to neatly sum up my thoughts within 1,000 characters, so I suppose I'll just leave it with "de gustibus non disputandum est".

To be completely fair, you really had to be there at the time. I just caught the tail end of it, being a child of the sixties (I was born at the beginning of the decade, and a lot of my early experience was formed by the changes in attitude and generational conflict of the time). I find a lot of the work of that period precious, vain and self-serving, but I do sort of understand it in its context.

It reflects its time, not so much in the sense that the artifacts of the era are well-captured, but it unashamedly takes the view that the audience is the real artist, and the performer/creator is merely providing a channel for the audience to find its own art. A lot of deconstructionist hogwash, if you ask me, but nobody asked me at the time.

We've returned in a large way to the artist as storyteller, and that's a good thing in my opinion. But back then, it was often seen as a sort of fascist attitude if you told people what they should be seeing, or even implied it.

I'm Stan's contemporary so also caught the end of this wave. The art world then was rigidly opposed to narrative, replacing it with attitude. The viewer was an equal partipant and process was still idolized. The Establishment was still the enemy, anything middle class, suburban, corporate. I guess that hasn't really changed.

Unfortunately, what started as freedom from rigid academicism had by my college years (early eighties) become just as rigidly conformist. You had to be part of some conceptual movement to matter. Luckily, I was a non-objective artist, essentially an abstract expressionist at heart, so avoided the sharpest jabs. I was just a little out of date and not adequately conceptual, and maybe a bit conservative (a nice bit of irony.)

It was all so boring and pointless and enforced by a growing mob of academic critics publishing unreadable journals. None of the good artists I knew cared about all that and few even tried to read the rubbish, but their careers were made or broken by where they fit.

Things seem a little better now. The academics still squabble, but the gallery owners, collectors, and museum goers pay less attention than they did from the fifties through the eighties. I was a painter, not a photographer so didn't know much about their arguments. The photographers were a small subset who hung out in the basement. Back then photography had yet to achieve recognition as an art form equal to the traditional visual arts, though it was rising rapidly. In part due to people like Shore who made images that in no way resembled commercial photography. I like some of his work but much is just dated in a bad way. The same can be said of many other influential artists.

Funny, I liked the article, I've been thinking of a project of doing photos of my corner of the planet, as it is today. It would for sure be boring *today*, but I think it might have a value later, I like looking at street photography from another era, of an area that I know of today, seeing buildings that don't exist anymore, or other interesting facts ?

Roland, it isn't stupid to not like something, but it is stupid to act like you are forced to read every single thing DPReview posts and that your opinion of what is interesting and quality speaks for everyone else (not singling you out, speaking in general).

@BaconBit. So - its OK to say you like the article, but it is not OK to say you dont like it. And it is seems that it is OK to call those that dont like it stupid and haters. I dont know how good you are at logic. But - dont you see some problems here?

I guess you also find it hard to believe that these same photos are hanging in art galleries and are highly regarded by a lot of people. At the very least you may ask if there could be a reason for that...

There are other explanations. Stephen Shore has, in your terminology, been a "cult" for around 50 years and is still exhibited worldwide. Clearly, according to you, that's because some people are stupid, and you know better?

EDIT - I tried to edit the above post - but it failed. Here it is instead.

Of course there is a cult. There is always a cult around famous people. That is a fundamental property for human beings. I dont know if you like sports or religion or writers or whatever ... Cults everywhere.

Just to make sure I done miss anything here, I have now looked at all his photos at 303 gallery. And ... I still find them boring. I am never going to be a part of the cult around him.

You claim that I simply dont get it. Maybe. How would I know? If I dont get it I can probably not get that either.

But I have another theory. Right or wrong. Its the emperors new clothes. And you cant admit that, because then you dont get it either. :)

And that matters? He was taking these pictures long before the current definitions were in place. Kim admits right up front that they don't fit neatly into contemporary categories. I'd hate to think that there are photographers out there foolish enough to cut their work to the latest faddish definitions. Unfortunately, I know there are.

MarkInSF, you know absolutely nothing about street photography. "long before"? One could argue Andre Kertesz was among the first street photographers as were Cartier-Bresson and Brassai. Following them, but far earlier than Shore were Gary Winogrand and Lee Friedlander. Try and do a little homework before demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge.

Tom: Mark didn't say "long before street photography existed", he said "long before the current definitions were in place". Great artists generally make their work years before historians and critics decide what it's supposed to mean and how we're supposed to categorize it. Your comment does not reveal Mark's lack of knowledge, just your lack of contextual understanding.

P.S. Feel free to take a look at my other comments. I certainly wouldn't defend that Shore is even worth a mention among greats like Cartier-Bresson and Brassai. But unfounded accusations of ignorance are for meanies.

I don't see where Kim ever said that Stephen Shore was a street photographer. He simply suggested five things that street photographers might learn from Shore's work. Photographers are allowed to experiment with different genres. Sometimes they even learn stuff.

This is fine. Even in Japan, people take vacations and with Photokina coming up there isn't much news. I personally think Joel Sternfeld blows the doors off Stephen Shore for this type of photography but Shore has been around much longer, and to each his own.

While the quality of the article isn't the greatest, I applaud the fact that DPR has spent some more time on the process of photography and the results these days and not just on equipment reviews. Unless you are a serial equipment buyer, you likely spend far more time behind the viewfinder than buying equipment.

I think there's still some tuning to do on the selection of articles, but I'm glad an effort is being made.

If you only want reviews, just click the "Filter News" option on the front page and choose "Reviews and previews".

Wow - I hope you guys at dpr are making good money off this site, because based on the thankless comments, it can't be worth it otherwise.

I might find some of these more recent posts trivial, but others less so. I love being exposed to photographers I've never heard of. (In this case, I'm slightly familiar with Stephen Shore - I've even signed up to hear him speak at Photoplus Expo in October). Point is, there are lots of dpr readers out there and if a blurb about an article on Stephen Shore isn't interesting to some, don't assume it's not interesting to others.

Glad you like it! Also, some people seem unable to grasp the distinction, but posts like this are more in the order of 'look! Something interesting on the Internet!' We didn't commission or edit Eric Kim's article, which is on his own site ;)

The people like me that do not enthusiastically apploud you for this article, in my understanding are not "troubled when you post other things", they are bothered for DPR not posting the things that it is supposed to, and which are the main reason for us / me to be there at the first place...

Eric Kim is like the Kardashians- he's famous for absolutely nothing. He's not a pro, just some guy that can talk himself up a lot and has some disposable income from somewhere to masquerade as a pro photographer

I looked at Kurt's blog, and just WOW!He is a sensational photographer, mastering the skills of larger than life size macro photography! All taken using not so pro nor expensive gear along with a getto diy diffuser! Not to mention he discovered a new species, and the reason his name wasn't used to name the new species is probably because he's a nice guy, letting the scientist to name it.

This is not the first photography forum to feature a comment fueled series of debates about the merits of Erik Kim, it will not be the last. But like him and his photography or not, he is getting people engaged, out shooting, exploring techniques. I can only hope that anyone interested in learning photography is willing to explore more than a currently popular photoblog, whether it be Eric Kim, Zack Arias, or Natsumi Hayashi.

But our choice to share the thoughts of Eric Kim is purely driven by our interest in seeing photography where it is today. Reading the comments is actually a fascinating look into the passonate and personal investment we all make into this artform, and we'd be disappointed if our site was not a platform for that reality to be put on display.

Lastly, we do listen, so keep the comments coming. We try out different content to see what sticks, and we adjust as we go along. The technical reviews that made the site what it is have never left. And as has been noted quite a bit recently, we're on our way to launching even more technical content, namely, revamped lens reviews and more video coverage of products as well.

I think it's great to mix-up the technical review stuff with discussions about the work of influential photographers. I love Stephen Shore's photographs, because they are so personal a view of a certain time and place - what photography is all about...

The word 'snapshot' is utterly redundant. Even more so when shooting a 10x8 view camera!

Shore and Eggleston pioneered the use of colour film as a serious art form. Up until then it had mainly been used in an exaggerated way by advertisers.

The lack of a 'core' or clear message is exactly why I find Shores work interesting. If you have trouble with his work please don't look at his recent Abu Dhabi project shot on a D3x...you'll most likely have a fit and die.

If you live in the sort of place where a photographer might actually be placed on a sexual offenders list on account of any of the photographs in the linked article, I feel bad for you.

However, if you actually think Shore *should* be placed on such a list on the basis of any of the linked images - you're the sort of hysterical moralist making life increasingly difficult for any photographer that doesn't want to stay at home shooting setups on their coffee table. Thanks for nothing.

1. I think the work is pretentious nonsense2. I was making an oblique observation that taking pictures of girls in swimsuits at pools is the sort of thing that gets 'hysterical moralists' attacking photographers without any justification.It's outrageous that it happens, but it does; far too often.

I'm entirely relaxed about it, but unless you hadn't noticed, lift a camera in the direction of a young person in swimwear these days and you are looked on as some kind of pervert.

We need every parent to give permission for pictures to be taken of a school play, or sports day. Not so long ago a national newsreader was reported to the police because she had some prints done of her children in the bath.

Of course, if some of you still don't understand this elementary point, no amount of hammering on your thick skulls will change it...

The woman in the photo is his wife. If we have reached a level where to take a picture of your wife from the back in a swim suit is perverted then the loonies really have taken over.The point about kids is just stupid.

If you can't get your head around this elementary point...Oh nevermind-its his wife, go get one of your own!

Don't be an idiot. How is your local primary school anything to do with someone taking a picture of his wife?Seriously Basically stupid reasoning, born of lack of basic understanding-you're being deliberately obtuse not very clever!

Without falling into the 'I'm just as good as him' trap that a previous poster did, I too am the same age as Shore, born in 1947. Pioneering color photographer? I don't think so, given that Kodachrome came out in 1935, 12 years before either of us was born! Influential certainly, but hardly pioneering...

Shore was one of the first of the great photographers to use color photography as an art form. Color photography was considered inferior even during the sixties. It was mainly Shore, Eggleston, Meyerowitz and Leiter who have changed the public's perception of color photography and the new opportunities it opened up.

The publics perception of color photography? Hmmmm ... its my absolutely belief that color photography would have prospered just as nicely among the public without any color photography art forms whatsoever. It was a given winner as soon as it was a practical and economical alternative. Not many of the public have even heard of any of those guys.

BTW - if you want a pioneer. Take a look at that Russian guy who made color photos long before color film existed.

The importance of "the first ones" are almost always overrated. They simply are the first ones. If they never existed some other will be the first ones instead. Its just coincidence. Except in some exceptional exceptions. But color art photography is not that exceptional. Its a natural evolution.

For me DPR is loosing it's value and interest by not doing what it supposed to be doing - Digital Photography equipment Review, which was the main reason for me to have DPR listed in my "Favorites" for several years.

Late or skipped reviews, abandoned "lens Review"... by the time DPR publishes something that might be interesting - I already got the information long ago from several other sites.

Some tested current models that got significant firmware updates - are still tested, evaluated and show sample photos which are... irrelevant and missleading.

As an active contributor of several technical forums in my country, currently I rarely reference DPR anymore. As a co-editor (not payed but volunteraly) of "Technical News" forums - I do not remember whaen was the last time that my source for "news" was DPR. They are either late or insufficient in details.

DPR would be a much duller site if it concentrated solely on equipment. As you say, there are other technical-only sites. DPR is unique in referencing various aspects of photography and IMHO it's great.

@JuckSeriously, I do not care if you or any of your cheer-leaders miss me or not. I am her not because of you nor for them. I was here because of what DPR used to be, and the work that Phill A. used to do. This is what I am missing and this is the only thing that I care.

@ michaelizNo problem when all the new and interesting camera, firmware upgrade and lense reviews are done... really, no problem, but first...

I think it's out of discussion, that some of the pictures are a good handwork: right exposure etc (like the one shown here on dpr).

But I miss something special about the photography, too. Especially the pictures of streets - if they where mine I would have deleted them, because I couldn't find a trigger in them. They are just pics from the street, to much things in them to look at. You don't know where the core of the picture is, what he want to tell us with it. A picture of a half eaten burger with fries? The pics look like snapshots, just taken without thinking.

From looking at his sample photographs there is nothing he can teach me about street photography .the samples are just C**P.I just think DPR should spend more time on getting out reviews then endless no sensical articles on the front web page.most here dont care about this stuff we just want honest reviews and tests of equipment and then most if not all head straight to the forums to see whats happening.

Nice to see that the millions of DPR visitors have elected someone to represent their views (or at least the views of 'most' here). The editor responsible has promised to make up the time it took to post a link to this article (which we neither wrote, published or hosted) by coming in 5 minutes early tomorrow.

No. He can't make up the time of your readership (who HAVE taken the time to read this little snippet), and some who may have been fooled into believing this was a DPR "endorsement" of the site in question may have even "clicked through". Of all the worthwhile and informative sites on the web worthy of promotion, you have chosen Eric Kim's poorly written, (self) promotional blog ? Really ?? Therein lies the real problem.

DamenS, the merit or quality of a post is very often subjective. Just because it isn't to your taste doesn't mean that someone here won't find it useful or interesting. If you don't like it, then don't click on it, but you cannot decide for everyone what is interesting or useful and what is not.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've been shooting with one for a while now and have put together a gallery, a sample video and some preliminary analysis.

Panasonic's Lumix DC-GX9 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera that offers quite a few upgrades over its predecessor, with a lower price tag to boot. We've spent the weekend with the GX9 and have plenty of thoughts to share, along with an initial set of sample photos.

Panasonic's new premium compact boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. We spent a little time with it; read our first impressions.

The Panasonic GH5S is best understood as an even more video-centric variant of the GH5. We've tested it in a range of circumstances to see whether the video improvements are worth the loss of stabilization.

Latest buying guides

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.

Sony has made something of a break-through in sensor development with a new backside-illuminated CMOS sensor that is capable of global shutter, a huge improvement over current CMOS global shutter technology.

Microsoft has released a new "Ultimate Performance" mode for Windows 10 Pro for Workstations—a mode that throws all power management out the window (so to speak) in favor of the best possible performance it can pull from your hardware.

"Jurist Thomas Borberg said in a WPP-produced video that 'You have to be able to feel a World Press Photo in your stomach. If not, it’s not a World Press Photo.' Given this position, it’s not surprising that violent images are the ones that provoke stomach churning reactions."

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've been shooting with one for a while now and have put together a gallery, a sample video and some preliminary analysis.

With the release of its Fujinon MKX 18-55mm T2.9 and MKX 50-135mm T2.9 cinema lenses, Fujifilm finally gives X-mount shooters access to some great lenses that have already been available to E-mount shooters for months.

Fujifilm's newest X-series camera takes video very seriously, but also offers a strong stills feature set largely borrowed from the X-T2. We've had some time with a full-production X-H1 that luckily coincided with a little bit of rare February sunshine.

The Korean manufacturer will introduce a suite of AI technologies for its smartphones, including a Vision AI that puts the focus on camera usability and performance. The 2018 version of the flagship LG V30 will be the first device to feature the new tech.

Directors from six US intelligence agencies—including the CIA, FBI, and NSA—have told the Senate Intelligence Committee that it does not recommend Americans purchase Huawei devices, citing multiple security concerns.

Skydio claims the autonomous R1 drone is "the most advanced autonomous device—of any kind—available today." It uses the NVIDIA Jetson AI to continuously track you, even through complex environments like dense woods.

Tamron just published a teaser image that seems to show a new mirrorless zoom lens is "coming soon." An official announcement is probably planned for CP+, but join us for some good ol' fashioned speculation in the meantime.

The Loxia 25mm F2.4 joins four other manual-focus Loxia lenses designed specifically for Sony's full-frame mirrorless cameras—a "small, robust and versatile" lens that will keep your kit light and inconspicuous when you're on the go.

With video-centric cameras like the Panasonic GH5S in the office, it seemed high time to learn how to shoot with a gimbal. After a struggle up the learning curve, DPR staffer has found some sort of equilibrium.

Nominally at least, the new Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 is the successor to the GX8. But while it has a lot in common with the earlier model, the new camera comes with some serious updates, and a couple of caveats. Here's what you need to know.

Fujifilm's Imaging Solutions division recorded a revenue of $2.77 billion and operating income of $465 million in the first three quarters of 2017. That's a 15.6% increase in year-on-year revenue and a whopping 76.1% jump in operating income over the same period last year.

Photographer David Nadlinger won the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's (EPSRC) science photography contest with an incredible image that actually lets you see a single atom of strontium with the naked eye!